Jump to content

James Madison

Member
  • Content Count

    2,988
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

44 Excellent

About James Madison

  • Rank
    Notre Dame Fanatic

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    Aristotlianlogic
  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Indiana
  • Interests
    Reading a lot on subjects of law, logic, philosophy, and some economics.

    Lawyer/Assistant District Attorney. Specific interests, aside from criminal law, is 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, and certain aspects of constitutional law.
  1. My hope, perhaps perpetually optimistic, is Congress passes legislation ending the emergency, and then has enough votes for a veto. Trump needs a strong rebuke from the peoples house.
  2. Well, this is not a frivolous declaration by Trump. The federal statute he has invoked to declare an emergency, the NEA (National Emergency Act) does not define emergency. The plain text of the statute vests to the President wide latitude, practically absolute discretion, to determine when an emergency exists. There is simply no statutory language to guide the President or the courts as to what facts, circumstances, do or do not constitute as an emergency. However, declaring a national emergency is necessary to make accessible to Trump several federal statutes in which he is potentially given
  3. Well, this is not a frivolous declaration by Trump. The federal statute he has invoked to declare an emergency, the NEA (National Emergency Act) does not define emergency. The plain text of the statute vests to the President wide latitude, practically absolute discretion, to determine when an emergency exists. There is simply no statutory language to guide the President or the courts as to what facts, circumstances, do or do not constitute as an emergency. However, declaring a national emergency is necessary to make accessible to Trump several federal statutes in which he is potentially give
  4. You may be right. It was reported Paul was working on a compromise but Pence, through Trump, rejected the idea. The House Dems passed legislation opening parts of the government, but Trump vowed a veto, and the House legislation isnt immune to the veto. I would like to learn more about these, at the moment, obscure attempts to compromise.
  5. I'm not seeing the vast difference as a matter of Congress's inherent power not to spend money they don't want to spend. You seem to be on the side that Congress is obligated to fund the laws they pass, but only as long as it's a big enough segment of the law. I don't know where this obligation originates from. The fact remains that it is the law and Trump's demands fall well within the scope of funding it, even if his rhetoric demands more. The $5 billion won't go beyond the border of the Secure Fence Act anyway. That is not my argument. As a matter of fact, that would
  6. I don't know. If you think I'm in that vein, you should probably should talk to more conservative people. Then I wouldn't seem so odd. I live in a pretty liberal area and even I have to deal with people who would be much more likely to meet that criteria. Me, I'm a Romney-type squish according to a lot of Republicans these days. I'm not sure how part or full (particularly when the construction is the main aspect of the bill) makes any particular difference. Let's recall, the power of the purse is a very strong power, Congress's trump card really. It's strong enough that Congress co
  7. I don't know. If you think I'm in that vein, you should probably should talk to more conservative people. Then I wouldn't seem so odd. I live in a pretty liberal area and even I have to deal with people who would be much more likely to meet that criteria. Me, I'm a Romney-type squish according to a lot of Republicans these days. I'm not sure how part or full (particularly when the construction is the main aspect of the bill) makes any particular difference. Let's recall, the power of the purse is a very strong power, Congress's trump card really. It's strong enough that Congress co
  8. Eh, the Affordable Care Act was already law in 2013 when Obama threatened a veto of any law not funding the ACA. Many parts of the law would take effect without funding. The House passed legislation not funding the ACA and the Senate removed the provisions denying funding to the ACA. Those facts above, in the preceding paragraph, are not analogous to the current factual scenario surrounding the present government shutdown. Last I checked, the wall's construction is already a matter of law as well. It's been stopped, repealed as you put it, merely by a lack of funding. So I fail to see th
  9. I'm not saying that if Trump went on live TV and set a puppy on fire that you'd condone it, but you would bring up some obscure law pushed through by Democrats a hundred years ago that made puppy burning legal so that it was ultimately the left's fault. Your hatred runs soooo deep! Democrats treated Cruz, Paul, and House Republicans like crazed nihilistic maniacs for standing up for the principle that they don't have to fund something that the president demands just five years ago, not 100 years ago. Hell, fellow Republicans treated them like crazed maniacs. And, of course, they lost. So n
  10. Eh, the Affordable Care Act was already law in 2013 when Obama threatened a veto of any law not funding the ACA. Many parts of the law would take effect without funding. The House passed legislation not funding the ACA and the Senate removed the provisions denying funding to the ACA. Those facts above, in the preceding paragraph, are not analogous to the current factual scenario surrounding the present government shutdown.
  11. While suspending Congress's pay is appealing, it probably is not a wise idea. There may be too much inducement to hastily reach a deal that isnt good legislation.
  12. What is meant by impartial? There are a few understandings of what the word means in relation to judges and justices. I understand the word to mean there is not a bias for or against any of the parties before the judge/justice. His remarks on 9/27 do not show him to lack that kind of impartiality.
  13. I assume she felt safe with the other boy(s) around. I was more questioning why she left her friend with two boys with rape on their mind. I too found this segment of her testimony interesting when I heard it. She is telling the listener the most traumatic part, including the face, the identity, of her attacker,was burned into her memory, and to suggest her absolute certainty, she invoked very arcane, esoteric, academic language. Possible, but those other boys were already downstairs, along with her friend, so why not flee downsrsors first instead of the bathroom? Thats what I cannot unde
  14. I would like to know why she chose to hide from Kavanaugh in the bathroom but, knowing she had to walk past him and others to exit the house, chose to exit the bathroom, go downstairs, and walk past them, or were they elsewhere?
×
×
  • Create New...